[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Bugzappers: requests from maintainers for special treatment



On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 02:08 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hi, guys. Just a general issue mail for Bugzappers: I've recently been
> > talking to Seth Vidal, who wants special treatment for bugs in
> > components he maintains (yum and createrepo): he's happy for them to be
> > triaged according to the usual process, but he doesn't want the bugs
> > changed from NEW to ASSIGNED.
> 
> Does he have a strong reason not to just use ON_DEV as "really
> assigned" ;-) ? (That's working well for us in KDE SIG.)

I don't know, I'll try and remember to ask him.

> That said, it's unfortunate that we're abusing NEW as UNCONFIRMED and
> ASSIGNED as NEW (and have a nonstandard ON_DEV state which is being abused
> as ASSIGNED). It would make much more sense to use the standard Bugzilla
> terminology. This is also an artefact of sharing the RHEL Bugzilla with its
> nonstandard workflow. We end up trying to give meanings to the states
> defined by RHEL rather than defining the states we actually need and
> keeping close to upstream Bugzilla terminology.

Yeah, we've been discussing that. It's a fairly big problem to try and
get a hold of, though. I'd rather like a fix in which we can present one
set of states and resolutions for Fedora bugs and another set for RHEL
bugs, but I'm not sure if that's technically possible without excessive
patching. I need to talk to the Bugzilla maintainer.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]